Witziers, B.

English

University of Twente Research Information

COORDINATION IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS AND ITSIMPLICATIONS FOR STUDENT ACHIEVEMENTB. Witziers, Department of Education, University of Twente,Enschede, The NetherlandsIntroductionRegarding school organizations the concept of coordination is subject totheoretical and empirical controversies. One can discern two contrasting views.The first rejects the notion that schools are tightly linked bureaucracies. It acceptsthe proposition that schools lack close internal coordination and that content andmethods of Instruction tend to be linked loosely to the control and Influence of boththe bureaucratic and collegial aspects of schools (cf.Cohen, March & Olsen, 1972;Meyer & Rowan, 1979; Weick, 1979).The second view states that schools differ on these aspects. Although not assharply focused on coordination as the literature on 'loose coupling', the growingbody of literature on 'effective schools' points to the importance of coordination.Teachers may assume shared responsibility for accomplishing a set of objectives,depending on their shared attitudes toward pupils and shared conceptions ofeffective instruction. Further, schools may differ in the way school managementemploys school-wide plans and schedules (structural linkages) with regard to theinstructional system and in the way school management controls and evaluatesthe instructional system (cf. Rosenholtz, 1989).The above leads to two questions guiding this research project. First, it is clear thatteaching is controlled and coordinated, but unknown Is the Mature and extent ofcoordination within schools. The first question guiding this research project isrelated to this problem.Besides, the effects of instructional coordination are unknown. The reason forcoordination Is organizational effectiveness, yet much has to be learned about theexact relationship between coordination and organizational effectiveness. Thisrelationship is at the heart of the second question guiding the Is study. Main focusin this study is on coordination within departments. Departments are regarded astask groups structurally embedded in the organization of schools. They areresponsible for (the coordination of) the instruction of specific subject areas.Research concern ing departments is almost absent. As such, it is a neglectedarea in the field of educational research (cf. Slskin, 1991). Besides departments,attention is given to the (coordinative) role of school management and to the roleof heads of department.3 ,121Data sourceIn this research project 107 departments, representative of both geographic regionand school size, in three subject areas (history, mathematics and English) wereinvolved. Data were collected by means of questionnaires. The teacherquestionnaire covered questions concerning teacher collaboration, Instructionalpolicies, decision-making, team-consensus, cohesion and the intensity andfrequency of formal and informal meetings. The head of department questionnaireincluded questions concerning the school management. These questions referredto the nature and extent of bureaucratic (teacher control and school wide rulesgoverning teacher behaviour) and cultural linkages (school management teachercommunication with regard to the educational process of the department).Besides, questions were asked about the role of school management in thedecision-making process. Standardized student scores on a national achievementtests in the field of mathematics were used as achievement scores. Furthermore ,data with respect to relevant control variables (e.g. teacher experience,background characteristics of students) were collected.MethodsMultiple regression analysis was used to establish the relationship betweenvariables. A one-way analysis of variance was employed to explore the differencesin the nature and extent of coordination between departments in different subjectareas. A path model was developed to determine the influence of differentexogenous variables (subject area, role of head of department and schoolmanagement , school size) on variables concerning coordination within teams.To see whether theoretically relevant patterns of coordination in schoolorganizations could be discerned a cluster analysis was employed. These patternsof coordination were used in a multi-level model to assess the relation betweenInstructional coordination and student achievement. A second multi-level analysisestablished the relationship between student achievement and individualvariables concerning coordination.ResultsThe results of this study indicate that school organizations are less loosely coupledthan some authors state. Especially the data concerning the way departmentscoordinate the instructional system lead to this conclusion. Departments employmany procedures and rules to regulate the instructional behaviour of individualteachers. These rules and regulations concern mainly the content of Instruct Ion,the nature and extent of testing, grading and the goals and outcomes of teaching.The influence of departments on these aspects of teaching in the decision-makingprocess concerning these aspects is also considerable. On the other hand,teacher autonomy prevails within classes. Teachers are autonomous with respectto how to reach these commonly agreed upon goals and outcomes of education .However, this does not imply that within departments teachers differ to a largeextent in their classroom behaviour. The data show that within departmentseducational views and classroom behaviour of teachers are quite similar. Theresults concerning the differences between departments show that the willingnessof teachers to cooperate is by far the most important factor in explainingdifferences in coordination between departments. Aspects as communication,223 'jinstructional policies, collaboration are greatly determined by this factor. Theinfluence of school management can be traced in the extent departments developpolicies with respect to their educational process. The head of departmentinfluences the intensity and frequency of collaboration an d communication withindepartments. Furthermore, the data show (large) differences In coordinationbetween departments In different subject areas. This implies that within schoolsculturally based differences between departments exist. The results of the clusteranalysis show that 3 types of school organizations can be distinguished. The firstcan be characterized b y a lack of close internal coordination. Educationalleaderschip, collaboration, communication between teachers and policies concerning the educational process are (almost) absent. Within the second type theinstructional process is mainly coordinated mainly on the basis of collaborationand consensus. Policies concerning the educational process and educationalleaderschip are missing. The third type can be typified as tightly coupled orbureaucratic. Main features are educational leadership and strict policiesconcerning the educational process at the departmental level. Less Importantfeatures are communication between teachers and teacher collaboration. Resultsconcerning student achievement make clear that schools that can becharacterized as tightly coupled systems are more effective than loosely coupledschools. Responsible for this conclusion are mainly the results concerning studentachievement and the individual variables concerning coordination. Variables likestrong educational policies concerning the educational process and educationalleadership have a positive relationship with student achievement. Both aspectsrefer to the fact that evaluation is possibly the crucial factor in discerning effectivefrom ineffective schools.ReferencesAbbot, M.G. (1987). Coordination, a neglected variable in the study of schools, in:Johnston, G.S., Yeakey, C.C. Research and Thought In AdministratinTheory: Developments In The Field Of Educational AdministrationsAbbot, M.G., Caracheo, F. (1988). Power, Authority, and Bureaucracy, in: Boynan,N., Handbook of Research on educational Administration, Longman, NewYork, 239-257.Firestone, W.A., Wilson, B.L.(1985). Using bureucratic and cultural linkages toimprove instruction: The principals' contribution, Educational AdministrationQuarterly, Z1, 7-30.Fuller, B., Izu, J.A. (1986). Explaining school cohesion: What shapes theorganizational beliefs of teachers?, American Journal of Education, 501-535.Joyce, B.R., Hersh, R.H., McKibbin, M. (1983). The structure of schoolimprovement. Longman, White Plains, New York, 1983.Meyer, J.W., Rowan, B.(1978). The structure of educational organizations, in:Meyer, J.W. (Ed.), Environments and organizations, Jussey-Bass, SanFransisco.Mintzberg, H (1979. The structuring of organizations, Prentice Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey .Miskel, C., McDonald, D, Bloom, S.(1983). Structural and expectancy linkageswithin schools and organizational effectiveness )=ducationaLAdministrationQuarterly, El, 49-82.23Rosenholtz, S.J. (1989). Teachers' Workplace: the social organization of schoolsNew York, Longman.Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organizations In action, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967.Siskin,L.S. (1991). Departments as Different Worlds, educational AdministrationQuarterly, 2, 134-160.Weick, K. (1976), Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems,Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.Wilson, B.L., Corbett, H.D.(1983), Organization and change: The effects of schoollinkages on the quality of implementation Educational AdministrationQuarterly. la, 84-104.243 '1ono

Coordination in secondary schools and its implications for student achievement

https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/files/40638899/Witziers1992coordination.pdf

Coordination in secondary schools and its implications for student achievement

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Twente Research Information